Re: [asa] (about pithiness) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments

Dear Bernie,
Cut Murray some slack here. He effectively has given
to you the same answer I have.

I know you want a crystal clear answer. But some things
in theology just can't be outlined in black & white simple
mathematical categories (eg, love, forgiveness, etc).

It's becoming clear to me that your loss of faith is a
function of your epistemological assumptions/expectations.
Which of course leads to the question: can one loose his/her
faith because of an academic gaff?

>" I, for one, find Paul's writings to be something less than crystal clear
>on the theoretical level, and when someone simply directs me to a text, and
>says, "the answer is there", that is not very helpful."
>
> I learned from experience when someone answers like that, it really means
> they don't want to talk about it anymore, so I drop the conversation with
> those people at that point.
>
> Murray later said:
> " But Bernie's demand that I "precisely and concisely" provide pat answers
> on complex theological questions so he can offer a critique? Sorry, but
> that's not a game I have any interest in playing."
>
> The alternative is to make a rambling post, an essay, or a sermon, and I
> don't have time/interest for it. I appreciate pithy responses, such as
> the ones that George Murphy and Denis Lamoureux make.
>
> ...Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of Cameron Wybrow
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 5:18 PM
> To: ASA
> Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book
> comments
>
> Murray and others:
>
> While I think that Bernie has sometimes focused on the wrong questions,
> and
> got himself tangled up in the letter of religious teachings rather than
> their spirit, I don't think that all his questions are unreasonable, and I
> think that some of his very recent posts are getting evasive answers.
>
> Murray, I believe that Bernie is asking you to give YOUR interpretation of
> Romans 7. In particular, since it was you, not Bernie, who insisted that
> "the right questions" are:
>
> "What is sin?"
>
> "When did humans become morally culpable for it?"
>
> I think it is your responsibility to answer them.
>
> I, for one, find Paul's writings to be something less than crystal clear
> on
> the theoretical level, and when someone simply directs me to a text, and
> says, "the answer is there", that is not very helpful. It has always
> seemed
> to me that (if I may employ a slight exaggeration to make a point) there
> are
> almost as many different Pauline theologies as there are readers of Paul.
> I
> think you need to give at least sketchy answers to the two questions
> above,
> questions which, according to you, are the ones that Paul purports to
> answer. Bernie needs to know how you interpret Paul, and whether or not
> you
> agree with Paul.
>
> Cameron W.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book
> comments
>
>
>> Hi Bernie,
>>
>> Quite right, my previous answer was quite inadequate.
>>
>> I should have written;
>>
>> Go and UNDERSTAND Romans 7, not just "read" it.
>>
>> Apologies for the confusion...
>>
>> Blessings,
>> Murray
>>
>>
>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>> Murray said:
>>> "Again, you're asking the wrong question."
>>>
>>> You say my question is wrong, then propose others, and don't give an
>>> answer to your new questions. Please precisely and concisely provide
>>> your answers, so I can critique and offer an alternative.
>>>
>>> ...Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 3:18 PM
>>> To: asa
>>> Subject: Re: [asa] (introducing... sin) "Evolutionary Creation" book
>>> comments
>>>
>>> Hi Bernie,
>>>
>>> Again, you're asking the wrong question.
>>>
>>> The RIGHT question is NOT "how did sin enter the world" but, rather;
>>>
>>> 1) What is "sin"?
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> 2) When did humans become morally culpable for it?
>>>
>>> If your answer to (1) is "breaking God's law" or anything even remotely
>>> resembling it, then you're confusing cause with effect. Time to re-read
>>> Romans 7 and start again.
>>>
>>> Blessings,
>>> Murray.
>>>
>>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>> Murray - let me ask you this pointedly, and see if you can be precise.
>>>>
>>>> How exactly did sin enter the world? Please be specific and describe
>>>> the
>>>> actual reality, not in analogy.
>>>>
>>>> I will also tell you my understanding.
>>>> Denis Lamoureux said the inerrant theological truth to the origin of
>>>> sin
>>>> was that it was introduced by humans (I can quote it if you want),
>>>> although he won't explain the details. Do you agree? If so, explain
>>>> how humans introduced sin into the world.
>>>>
>>>> I will then explain how we can know that humans did not introduce sin
>>>> into the world.
>>>>
>>>> My counter-point to Lamoureux is that the idea of humans introducing
>>>> sin
>>>> into the world, using his own hermeneutics, should be classified as
>>>> "ancient" (and incorrect I might add) theology. (Lamoureux and I both
>>>> agree there was no literal Adam or first human.)
>>>>
>>>> ...Bernie
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
>>>> Behalf Of Murray Hogg
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 4:16 PM
>>>> To: ASA
>>>> Subject: Re: [asa] (dreamtime) "Evolutionary Creation" book comments
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dehler, Bernie wrote:
>>>>> Therefore, to be precise, the Adam of that story was not a real guy,
>>>>> because the story is not real. It is merely a parable using
>>>>> well-known
>>>>> existing characters. Am I correct?
>>>> Actually, to be precise, you are committing a category error.
>>>>
>>>> The claim "the story is not real" merely begs the question "real in
>>>> what
>>>> sense?"
>>>>
>>>> To which your answer, as far as I can tell, is "real in the sense
>>>> modern
>>>> history is real"
>>>>
>>>> My response: It's not modern history, thus your question ("was Adam
>>>> real") presumes a category error and allows of no answer.
>>>>
>>>> There is, simply put, NO WAY to tell from Genesis 1/2 whether Adam was
>>>> a
>>>> "real" person even though, from what we know of pre-modern oral
>>>> tradition, it is highly unlikely that such a significant story would be
>>>> attached to an entirely fictitious figure.
>>>>
>>>> Blessings,
>>>> Murray
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Oct 2 11:51:10 2009